Proudliberal & Same-Sex Marriage
by John Spritzler
The following is an extract from my book, Divide and Rule: The Left vs. Right Trap in the chapter about Same-Sex Marriage.
I think same-sex marriage should be legal, but only when anonymous third-party gamete [sperm or egg]-donation-conception is illegal. Back in 2009 I stated this same position by saying that I opposed same-sex marriage, period. I worded my view that way back then because I assumed (as I no longer do) that the legality of anonymous third-party gamete-donation conception was a permanent fact.
Before diving into this subject I want to share an online exchange I had in 2009 with somebody defending same-sex marriage who vehemently disagreed with me at first, but then came to see we really agreed on a lot and almost changed her mind about same-sex marriage. This illustrates how much the two opposing sides of the same-sex marriage debate agree; this agreement, however, is kept secret by mass media censorship, in order to divide-and-rule us.
Back in 2009 I posted an online comment to an article (like a letter to the editor) to the MetroWest Daily News (a newspaper that serves Western Massachusetts). My comment, along with all the comments it generated, was online for quite a while but now has unfortunately been removed.[1] I opposed same-sex marriage for reasons having to do with a concern for children (to be discussed below). A person using the online ID of "proudliberal" attacked me viciously with ad hominem insults galore, as you will read below. But when I finally persuaded proudliberal to read my article about same-sex marriage on my website, which talked about how a concern for children relates to the question of same-sex marriage, she (I'll assume the female gender arbitrarily to make it easier to talk about) admitted the points it made were serious, of concern to her, and she almost ended up agreeing with me about same-sex marriage! Here are the details.
My initial post concluded with these words:
Now consider what happens when a same-sex couple has a "child of their own," meaning a child that one of them is the biological parent of, not an adopted child. The biological connection matters tremendously to this couple, which is precisely why they don't adopt but instead conceive a child the only way they can–by using donated (typically anonymously) sperm or egg. But in so doing, this couple deliberately ensures that their child will be denied the very thing they value so much for themselves—the bond with its biological mother (if the same-sex couple is two men) or father (if the couple is two women). This bond matters even more to the child! Growing up without that connection is likely to cause great emotional pain, as the children conceived with anonymously donated sperm who are reaching adulthood now are starting to tell us. The principle behind laws about who can and cannot marry is that the welfare of children trumps the desires of adults. A law making same-sex marriage illegal reflects this principle–concern for children; it no more denies anybody a right, or promotes inequality or hate, than does the law against sibling marriage."
Proudliberal shot back:
How much of an IDIOT is this writer? Guess what, genius, homosexuals will NOT procreate or if they do it will be not between each other. Furthermore, no one is asking people who are blood relations like brother and sister, or sister and sister etc. for permission to marry. Clearly there are things that are inherently objectionable because of the incest and its rancid genetic procreation implications .
As for the glories of the child being raised by his biological father and mother we KNOW how often children are abused and MOST often by heterosexual men. We further know that incest is more frequent than anyone on earth would like to believe. It is perpetrated often by fathers against their daughters or brothers against their sisters as disgusting as that may seem at least to me. [and more followed—J.S.]
She then continued:
Why these fanatical religious psychologically impaired try to put across BOLD face lies is beyond me and worse still get people to believe them like gay marriage will encourage incest or bestiality. Oh sure hundreds of thousands will march in the street to marry their DOG or their mother! They take the worst thing to the human ear to try to equate homosexual people with the most base, disgusting behavior as if it rises to that level. Why don't you just say if we allow gay marriage then someone will want to marry their pet spider or an elephant. WELL, Mr. Spritzer genius that you are, IT DOESN'T. Your daughter, your wife, your son or your grandchildren or your grandchildren to be or your friends probably someone somewhere in your family or circle of friends is homosexual or many are and wouldn't dare tell you because you would equate his/her affectational preference to incest or having sex with a beast. Nice. How would YOU like it if the situation were reversed and someone equated who you go for with having sex with a horse. Am I even writing this? Can't help it the postulation by Spritzler is SO outrageous I feel it is worthy of an outrageous response.
Sometimes people who protest too much have something deep inside that they want to protest. Like a secrete wish or desire to be with someone of your own sex maybe? Just asking.
I made some replies to her and to the other hostile commenters and then she replied with:
Your argument Spritzler, does not in my opinion hold water because it cannot be shown anywhere that two gay people in a committed or married relationship having children even done with the help of technology or not in any way hurts the quality of the lives of the children. They do AS well as any other children do in relationships of heterosexual couples who are in loving and committed relationships. If the essence of your debate is whether relationships are good for children studies have shown it is NOT the fact of gay or straight that is the variable for as you say 'consequences for the child' t is the QUALITY of the relationship and where the children thrive best.
Then I wrote:
proudliberal, you seem not to have read the link I posted with first hand accounts by children, statements of professionals, and academic research about the negative consequences experienced by children who are conceived by anonymous sperm or egg donation or denied a family with both of their biological parents, or if you have read it you apparently wish to act as if it did not exist. Here is the link, in case you missed it. You will have to copy and paste it into your browser:
http://newdemocracyworld.org/culture/legalizing_same_sex_marriage.html [Note: this website has been taken down now--J.S.]
The article linked here has, in turn, other links that you should click and read and think about.
When you have read these accounts by children of anonymous sperm or egg donor conception, then we can discuss if there is a real reason to be concerned or not. But it is silly to just pretend that these children and their feelings are not real. Do not forget that other readers (the silent ones who do not post their own comments here, who do not wish to be called the names that I have been called earlier) will also likely read the link above and think about what they read. If you ignore it, they will see that you ignore it and draw their own conclusion about the integrity of your arguments.
And then proudliberal replied as follows:
Okay Spritzler I am in the process of reading that link and digesting it. Without forming ANY analysis whatsoever I will give you the point that it is NOT a usual dumb biblical argument to which I would close my mind. It is smart no doubt about it so I have to say I like it because it IS smart, which is why I need to read it entirely and then think about it, think about my own feelings because biology and my heritage on both sides is important to me as a person and formulate my opinion. See liberals really are tolerant and thoughtful. This is a thoughtful I'll grant you that, argument not often found on conservative sites. I said I was done but this is what happens...so let me think about it and Stay tuned.
This was the end of our exchange, unfortunately. I don’t know how proudliberal’s thinking developed after our exchange and after she read more of my article and its linked articles by the children of anonymous sperm or egg donors. But from what she wrote above I would not be surprised if she actually came to share my opinion about same-sex marriage. Of course if she did come to agree with me it would mean that she would be viewed by her progressive friends as a bigot—unless she were able to persuade her friends that the reason she changed her mind had nothing to do with bigotry against homosexuals.
[1] The URL of the now-broken link is http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/letters_to_the_editor/x138098513/Spritzler-Incest-and-same-sex-marriage but the Wayback Machine couldn’t find it. Maybe some reader will be able to, I hope.